Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 163

Thread: Gay Marriage ruling

  1. #41
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    How is your marriage different than is was yesterday?
    Good luck getting a straight answer on that. No pun intended.

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,369
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    How is your marriage different than is was yesterday?
    It's been redefined diluted and adulterated by libs ex post facto to include immoral, idiotic, unnatural qualities it hadn't heretofore
    to suit social climbing closet cases. Whole Milk is not the same as 1% Milk and is not labelled as such, now my wholesome marriage has to be degraded
    for the sake of the sausage smuggling 1%? Bah!

    Any other bright questions?
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-26-2013 at 03:46 PM.

  3. #43
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    I think reasonable people can accept your support of their rights but not approval of their activities.
    Again, I'm not trying to be diffiuclt, but I've made NO judgement of support/approval or disdain/disapproval for "their activities" here, or elsewhere.

    My point is strictly limited to two things:

    1. Full support for equallity and equal treatment under the Law, including when entering into civil contracts with other peope (i.e. marriage under the State).

    2. Homosexuality is not normal, i.e. it lies outside the norm. Normal is Heterosexuality in Homo Sapiens. It is normal that some small percentage exhibit this trait in our species, but it not the norm to be Homosexual anymore than it's normal to be blind, or have any other genetic or mental divergence from the average/normal. While I appreciate that may in fact make people with these non-normal traits feel bad, we should not redefine basic language and terms to protect them from these facts.

    If you ask, I don't really hold an opinion of judgement on homosexuality itself. If thinking, consenting adults want to do it, or are compelled by genetics to do it, and wish to engage in a contract do exclsuively do it with added benefits and rights other couples enjoy.....awesome, cool for them, and I support their desire to do so.

    P.S. Sorry about Hernandez. I know alot of Jets Fans will pile on, but this really isn't funny and I can see how mcuh it would suck if it happened to my team or one of the guys I liked and rooted for. Condolences.
    Last edited by Churchill; 06-26-2013 at 03:42 PM.

  4. #44
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,369
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Jet View Post
    Good luck getting a straight answer on that. No pun intended.
    I'm perfectly capable of answering for myself, ""

  5. #45
    Mod Friend to JI Legends
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    29,922
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post

    The third, Polgyany is absolutely going to happen next IMO, based upon the specific arguments used to win this and other Gay marriage suits.
    Impossible; there are few latent polygamists; not enough to make a difference. I see where you are going, but it would be tabled ad anuseum

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    I'm perfectly capable of answering for myself, ""
    Lighten up Francis

  7. #47
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Again, I'm not trying to be diffiuclt, but I've made NO judgement of support/approval or disdain/disapproval for "their activities" here, or elsewhere.

    My point is strictly limited to two things:

    1. Full support for equallity and equal treatment under the Law, including when entering into civil contracts with other peope (i.e. marriage under the State).

    2. Homosexuality is not normal, i.e. it lies outside the norm. Normal is Heterosexuality in Homo Sapiens. It is normal that some small percentage exhibit this trait in our species, but it not the norm to be Homosexual anymore than it's normal to be blind, or have any other genetic or mental divergence from the average/normal. While I appreciate that may in fact make people with these non-normal traits feel bad, we should not redefine basic language and terms to protect them from these facts.

    If you ask, I don't really hold an opinion of judgement on homosexuality itself. If thinking, consenting adults want to do it, or are compelled by genetics to do it, and wish to engage in a contract do exclsuively do it with added benefits and rights other couples enjoy.....awesome, cool for them, and I support their desire to do so.

    P.S. Sorry about Hernandez. I know alot of Jets Fans will pile on, but this really isn't funny and I can see how mcuh it would suck if it happened to my team or one of the guys I liked and rooted for. Condolences.
    Sorry for misunderstanding your words. Lets not get into the word normal. I have all kinds of questions about normal...3rd nipples, web feet, etc.

    Anywho about Hernandez...when a dead body is discovered in your town...you can imagine your feelings about the football team you root for are just about at the bottom of your list.

  8. #48
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    It's interesting from an historical perspective that cultures have dealt with homosexuality in so many different ways. It's not a matter of current PC at all, but the dominance of Judeo-Christian beliefs in our culture that have imposed "sin" on virtually all practices that don't lead to procreation. That includes the dreaded "onanism" practiced by Noah. I would argue that it is actually the PC Judeo-Christians who are drawing the lines on normalcy here, not those who see homosexuality as a "live and let live" issue.

    As to "normalcy" in any case, I think the whole construct is strained and useless. I have determined that anyone who has more than six kids is "abnormal;" anyone who has more than two dogs; anyone who wears stripes and plaids at the same time; anyone who is less than five feet tall; anyone who actually likes eggplant. If it helps you sleep at night, then by all means go about neatly categorizing "normal" and "abnormal." Although you still must answer the question why from an evolutionary perspective homosexuality exists at all. Could it actually serve a purpose?
    I'll start by saying the Court made the right call on DOMA, and any conservative who claims to be a defender of the Constitution (and in particular the 10th Amendment) who says otherwise is a hypocrite. This was a big win for States rights and limitation on the power of the federal government. If you wanted to limit "marriage" to heteros, you never should have accepted government involvement in the form of tax deductions. That is when you lost the ability to exclude based on sexual orientation, not now. I applaud the decision.

    Second, the idea that the "normalcy" issue is strictly a religious stance is absurd, almost as much as the suggestion that it could possibly provide any evolutionary benefit. It, like all traits, it a genetic mutation. Those random mutations over generations prove to be benetial to survival and propagation of the species, or not. Homosexuality has no evolutionary advantage, therefore it certainly can be considered as abnormal as blindness, as the Fist pointed out. I find it particularly amusing when these facts are dismissed by the very same folks who tout evolution so much when confronted with creationists. Guess you get to pick and choose when science applies and when it doesn't?

    Lastly, have to wonder how many have yet thought about the budget implications. There's about to be massive payoffs to folks who were denied deductions since DOMA's implementation.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 06-26-2013 at 04:16 PM.

  9. #49
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    16,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    Same sex marriage, girls playing boys sports, one parent households etc. etc. idk.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,439
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache 51 View Post
    Same sex marriage, girls playing boys sports, one parent households etc. etc. idk.
    You must have missed the thread about the transgender 1st grader.

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,116
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'm not going to restate a clearly presented and supported argument for you just because you choose not to understand it.



    Only if you redefine what normal means. Being in posession of a variance form the norm will never be normal without socio-political re-definition, as is occuring here.

    To answer you somewhat off-topic question, there is no such thing as "evolutionary purpose", evolution is an unguided and random process, not a guided hand of God that has things like "purpose". What works works and lives on, what does not does not and doesn't.

    So no, it does not serve an evolutionary "purpose", and if evolution could overpower our collective-social-intelligence (which in this case it clearly cannot), any supposed genetic cause would die off due to lack or reproduction, and only social choice (which COULD then be judged by society if it so choose) would remain.

    Only the socio-political mandate requires that we redefine something that is not normal to be normal. Without that social pressure, there is no question that a deviancy from the norm (norm being hetero) would be called what it is.

    The logical proof is thus: If being gay is normal, it's normal to be gay. Hence all of us hetero would not be normal, because the very meaning of normal does mean "any possible combination fo traits", it means what is says on the tin, the "normal", i.e. Normality (also known as normalcy) is the state of being normal. Behaviour can be normal for an individual (intrapersonal normality) when it is consistent with the most common behaviour for that person.

    Which brings me back to the beginning. It's not enough to support and tolerate. The socio-political pressure to agree fully even if illogical and counter-factual or else isnever more obvious than when discussing this issue or others like it.
    Several points:

    1. When I said purpose, I was referencing natural selection. It is indeed local adaptation not some overall teleology. On that we agree. Random variation is indeed a driving force of selection. We are not in disagreement.

    2. You seem to be defining "normalcy" based on statistical variance, not on evolutionary advantage. The fact that there is more of something does not necessarily establish that it is more adaptive. Species have evolved themselves out of existence, so "mistakes" do indeed occur from a selection point of view.

    3. High intelligence is not the norm, nor is being wealthy, or having perfectly symmetrical features. Yet all three may indeed be advantageous to survival and selection. On the other hand, these may all ultimately be their own death warrant, as they can also lead to reduced procreation. We frankly don't know if consciousness itself is an artifact and useless -- even dangerous -- to the survival of our species or beneficial. Before the advent of the atomic bomb, it was all good and we looked like we had the recipe for dominance. Who knows? There are lots of insects out there doing quite well while we toy with our own doom.

    4. So in the end, I don't really give a damn about the normalcy argument, as it does establish anything but a circular kind of logic that tells us nothing.

    5. As for the Biblical moral arguments, they are as primitive and useless as slavery, not eating pork, avoiding combining milk and flesh, and other stupidities of a dead age.

    I am happy for gay people that they can join in equality where states permit it. It just seems fundamentally correct to me. As a married heterosexual, I find the argument that my marriage or anyone's has been "watered down" to be the most palpable idiocy of a frightened reactionary element in our society. They should join Paula Deen on her ante-bellum island of long-long ago.

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,369
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    Impossible; there are few latent polygamists; not enough to make a difference. I see where you are going, but it would be tabled ad anuseum
    How many polygamists do you need for the quorum to make it as "valid" as SSM?

  13. #53
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,116
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    I'll start by saying the Court made the right call on DOMA, and any conservative who claims to be a defender of the Constitution (and in particular the 10th Amendment) who says otherwise is a hypocrite. This was a big win for States rights and limitation on the power of the federal government. If you wanted to limit "marriage" to heteros, you never should have accepted government involvement in the form of tax deductions. That is when you lost the ability to exclude based on sexual orientation, not now. I applaud the decision.

    Second, the idea that the "normalcy" issue is strictly a religious stance is absurd, almost as much as the suggestion that it could possibly provide any evolutionary benefit. It, like all traits, it a genetic mutation. Those random mutations over generations prove to be benetial to survival and propagation of the species, or not. Homosexuality has no evolutionary advantage, therefore it certainly can be considered as abnormal as blindness, as the Fist pointed out. I find it particularly amusing when these facts are dismissed by the very same folks who tout evolution so much when confronted with creationists. Guess you get to pick and choose when science applies and when it doesn't?

    Lastly, have to wonder how many have yet thought about the budget implications. There's about to be massive payoffs to folks who were denied deductions since DOMA's implementation.
    We are in agreement on the ruling. You have obviously not read the literature on evolution. Or at least not more than a very cursory account. You are looking at homosexuality in a narrow band rather than as an element of a larger local community. It may in fact serve to promote the survival of the group at the expense of the individual homosexual's procreation. Among the Cheyenne, homosexual males were the most daring warriors in the tribe, engaging in high-risk attack. A version a altruism seen in many areas of nature that could actually serve to protect the males who are most viable for procreation. It's a very complex topic, as even Darwin was quick to realize. You're a bit too dismissive in my opinion.

    Re the financial issues, so be it. It's just.

  14. #54
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    It's been redefined diluted and adulterated by libs ex post facto to include immoral, idiotic, unnatural qualities it hadn't heretofore
    to suit social climbing closet cases. Whole Milk is not the same as 1% Milk and is not labelled as such, now my wholesome marriage has to be degraded
    for the sake of the sausage smuggling 1%? Bah!
    Sorry for your loss. I'm heading home to see if my marriage is OK.

  15. #55
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Several points:
    Respectfully, none are particularly worthy of response at this point.

    Your "replying" is worse than normal today. Once again I find that I'm not even sure you're reading the content my posts before you immediately wargarbl in some vague related but non-reply-to-me way at them.

    Probably time to simply say good day my friend.

    Oh, and lame dig at Deen btw.

  16. #56
    Mod Friend to JI Legends
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    29,922
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    How many polygamists do you need for the quorum to make it as "valid" as SSM?
    You miss the point.

  17. #57
    Mod Friend to JI Legends
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    29,922
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    I'll start by saying the Court made the right call on DOMA, and any conservative who claims to be a defender of the Constitution (and in particular the 10th Amendment) who says otherwise is a hypocrite. This was a big win for States rights and limitation on the power of the federal government. If you wanted to limit "marriage" to heteros, you never should have accepted government involvement in the form of tax deductions. That is when you lost the ability to exclude based on sexual orientation, not now. I applaud the decision.

    Second, the idea that the "normalcy" issue is strictly a religious stance is absurd, almost as much as the suggestion that it could possibly provide any evolutionary benefit. It, like all traits, it a genetic mutation. Those random mutations over generations prove to be benetial to survival and propagation of the species, or not. Homosexuality has no evolutionary advantage, therefore it certainly can be considered as abnormal as blindness, as the Fist pointed out. I find it particularly amusing when these facts are dismissed by the very same folks who tout evolution so much when confronted with creationists. Guess you get to pick and choose when science applies and when it doesn't?

    Lastly, have to wonder how many have yet thought about the budget implications. There's about to be massive payoffs to folks who were denied deductions since DOMA's implementation.
    TEacher, Teacher!! TEACHER!!!


    I was going to say this...but mister potato jumped my turn.


    Can I still have a gold star?

  18. #58
    All League
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,583
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Also, I was unaware the homosexuallity had been locked down as a genetic issue. Source?
    Again, it's not the action that counts, but the evolutionary design of the species. This is not about choices.
    So to you, is gayness a choice or is it the way you're born/genetic?

    To answer your issue we (homo sapiens) are a sexual reproducing organism, and as such, the reproductive norm in our specific species is hetero. Deviation from that is by definition not normal, but a specific dysfunction that does not permit normal sexual reproduction as we are evolved to do.
    But, homosexuals can reproduce. Whether you believe being gay is a choice or hardwired into them, a gay male and gay female can engage in reproductive sex and produce offspring. They still possess the necessary...'tools'.

    So accordingly, they are not abnormal if they can produce offspring...right?

    Sexual activity (of any kind) simply for enjoyment is no different that any other activity just for enjoyment.
    But, gays engage in sexual activities with each other simply for enjoyment. Obviously, there can be no other motive for it. So how is that different from oral sex which is simply for entertainment?

    We are designed by evolution to have eyes, hence lacking eyes is not normal, it is a dysfunction, even if 10% of us might lack vision.
    Blind people still have eyes, they just don't work. That is the dysfunction. Gay people have reproductive parts which work but aren't being used to reproduce. Not an apples to apples comparison IMO.

    ===============================

    I'm actually against homosexuality. However, like you, I believe in tolerating it. I don't believe it's up to the government to make it a legal issue. It's a human issue. And on those merits, I believe it should be tolerated. Maybe it's my financial background, but I fiercely believe in a small government.

    I just wanted to correct/comment on/question some of the discrepancies in your posts.

  19. #59
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by greenwichjetfan View Post
    So to you, is gayness a choice or is it the way you're born/genetic?
    Respectfully, I'm not going over all this again. Most of your post does not accurately reflect my position or argument, like LiL, so I'm not going to argue against a poor understand of what I've said.

  20. #60
    All League
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,583
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Respectfully, I'm not going over all this again. Most of your post does not accurately reflect my position or argument, like LiL, so I'm not going to argue against a poor understand of what I've said.
    I understand your stance and your reasons for your stance perfectly well. And frankly, the fact that you believe in toleration is admirable, especially for someone with your stance. However, I've gone through it twice, and found discrepancies both times, which is why I reluctantly posted. I obviously refrain from addressing posts in the politics forum as I'm sure you're aware.

    Forgetting the part which you quoted about it being a choice or not, at least try to comment on the other three points.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us